Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A. Muniappan vs The Tahsildar on 9 December, 2024
1
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.28108/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-04-2024
in WA No. 309/2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
A. MUNIAPPAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.277381/2024- DELETION OF PROFORMA RESPONDENTS, IA
No.277378/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.277380/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP)
Date : 09-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Chitra Sampath, Sr. Adv.
Ms. R. Shase, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Application seeking deletion of proforma respondent Nos.5 to 12 respectively is allowed.
3. Cause title be amended accordingly.
4. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.309/2009 and W.P. No.1394/2009 and WMP No.2106/2023 in W.P. No.11872/2003 dated 12-4-2024 by which Signature Not Verified the petition filed by the petitioners – herein came to be disposed Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2024.12.10 19:15:08 IST Reason: 2 of in the following terms:-
“27. Finally, as observed by the earlier Coordinate Bench in and by order dated 20 12.2007, when the Appellants are all given rehabilitation in the tenements allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (presently Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board), still the Appellants are refusing to move of the encroached place and are insisting that they can only be thrown out by a decree of Civil Court.
The Petitioners are encroachers who do not have any right in respect of the lands in question. Their entire case that let them be thrown out only by a decree of the civil Court. They have no plausible answer to the question as to why they are the contesting the matter when an alternative accommodation is provided to them. Apart from being detrimental to their own interest, their plea which is raised after repeated rounds of litigation being in litiguous possession for this length of period would certainly be against public interest. In the Writ Appeal the Appellants are challenging the order of the first Respondent seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In exceptional and extraordinary cases, even if the Petitioners point out a case, if the factual situation so warrants, this Court can refuse to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Useful reference in this regard shall be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd -Vs- Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority and others (2023 SCC Online SC 95) and the relevant portion of paragraph 4 is extracted hereunder "4.... A Writ Petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a high Court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the Petitioner, despite 3 setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest...."
29. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, when the proceedings taken by the Respondents for eviction of the Appellants being confirmed by this Court, the prayer in W.P. No, 11872 of 2023 would only be superfluous and therefore, there is no necessity to pass any further orders in W.M.P. No. 21064 of 2023 and accordingly, the said Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
5. We heard Ms. Chitra Sampath, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
6. We also looked into the materials on record, more particularly the impugned judgment of the High Court.
7. The High Court in clear terms has observed that the petitioners – herein have already been rehabilitated in the tenements allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (presently Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board). The High Court proceeded further to observe that the petitioners are refusing to leave the land alleged to have been encroached upon and have been insisting that they can be dispossessed only after due process of law, i.e., by a decree of Civil Court.
8. The findings recorded by the High Court are that the petitioners – herein are encroachers and they have no right, title or interest to reside on the land in question.
9. Ms. Chitra, the learned Senior counsel submitted that although the High Court has observed that the petitioners have been rehabilitated in the tenements allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board yet factually it is incorrect.
10. If what has been submitted by Ms. Chitra Sampath is true, then it shall be open for the petitioners to go back to the High Court and point out that in fact no rehabilitation has been provided and they are ready to get themselves rehabilitated provided tenements are allotted by the Board in their favour.
411. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)